on moving tags

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Yates wrote:
| On May 17 2005 Aaron Bentley wrote:
|
|
|>'Tag' connotes something added to an object to describe it, while
|>'name' connotes something permanent and integral, so I think tag is the
|>better term (and less confusable with the permanent 'revision id').

| To the extent that one would like to encourage users to think of "tags"
| as stable references arguing that the term "tag" is to be preferred
| because it emphasizes the volatile nature of the association seems a bit
| perverse.

In relation to revision ids, tags are more volatile.  In Arch, the term
for revision id is "(fully-qualified) revision name", so at least some
people see a name as an id.  In any case, tags are not integral--any
number of tags can be added later, whereas each revision has one, and
only one id, which assigned at creation time.

| That "name" connotes greater permanence is exactly the effect
| we should be seeking.  Further I think common experience is that not all
| names are "permanent and integral".  Conference of reassignalbe roles is
| regularly expressed using the verb "to name": e.g. he was named Bachelor
| of the Year.

"Name" is a word with many meanings.  "Proper name" is what I perceived
you to mean by "revision name".  "Proper names" are not permanent, but
are reasonably stable.  "A descriptive or qualifying appellation given
to a person or thing, on account of a character or acts." (e.g.
"Bachelor of the Year") is much closer to what a tag actually is, and I
don't think this is the sense you intend.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCiiRK0F+nu1YWqI0RAj/eAJ4++YOW/HcL9Xlg+QXnrzL845vS/ACdFHTV
rZPzbtOViYITBNC0OKr7Ya8=
=+zR9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----